Peebo Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Question for our American posters or anybody else who may know. If Trump wins, surely he'll have to give up being Chairman & President of the Trump Organisation? Surely he'll not be allowed to sit on the board of said organisation, for one when will he have the time to run a company and if he's running the company then he's not running the country, there is no way he can do both and then of course what happens when or if Trump companies start to get US government contracts, imagine the political shit storm that's going to cause. So does anybody know what happens, or are you lot perhaps going into uncharted territory? Maybe just declare it bankrupt, tell his creditors to go **** themselves and hand over the assets to his offspring. That's what someone as smart as him would do, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Personally I get the distinct impression that Trump hasn't got a clue what he's about to let himself in for, if he won the presidency that is. It's probably just me, but I just think he thinks that he'll be able to treat the presidency like running his companies, he'll wander into the oval office at around 8 am, hold a meeting with some advisors, issue some orders, read and sign some papers, then off to lunch, maybe get a few holes in (steady now) of golf in the afternoon. I don't think he realises it's a 24 hour 365 days a year job, as said maybe it's just me. I suspect he gets that. And who better to run the country than someone who always has his thumb poised over the Twitter app at 3am? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidelight Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Fair enough. The main thing I was taking issue with was that Trump was honest and self-aware. I think he has exactly none on of either quality, nor has he ever. If he said that about respecting women, it's because he thought it was the punchy, attention-getting thing to do at the time, not because he'd given it any thought. Also, I had an additional thought on this after I hit "post:" I realize it's possible, but at the moment it's beyond me to imagine a bigger political shit storm than the one we're living in. Does this carry any substance? Or is it just rhetorical nonsense? http://truepundit.com/breaking-bombshell-nypd-blows-whistle-on-new-hillary-emails-money-laundering-sex-crimes-with-children-child-exploitation-pay-to-play-perjury/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Does this carry any substance? Or is it just rhetorical nonsense? http://truepundit.com/breaking-bombshell-nypd-blows-whistle-on-new-hillary-emails-money-laundering-sex-crimes-with-children-child-exploitation-pay-to-play-perjury/ Hopefully no substance as it would mean kids involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidelight Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Hopefully no substance as it would mean kids involved. Having looked further, it seems that it?s just irresponsible trash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Does this carry any substance? Or is it just rhetorical nonsense? http://truepundit.com/breaking-bombshell-nypd-blows-whistle-on-new-hillary-emails-money-laundering-sex-crimes-with-children-child-exploitation-pay-to-play-perjury/ I have no idea how the NYPD would have any info on what was on a laptop that the FBI have a hold of. So yes, trash would seem to be the right take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) Personally I get the distinct impression that Trump hasn't got a clue what he's about to let himself in for, if he won the presidency that is. It's probably just me, but I just think he thinks that he'll be able to treat the presidency like running his companies, he'll wander into the oval office at around 8 am, hold a meeting with some advisors, issue some orders, read and sign some papers, then off to lunch, maybe get a few holes in (steady now) of golf in the afternoon. I don't think he realises it's a 24 hour 365 days a year job, as said maybe it's just me. Sounds a bit like the Reagan presidency. With maybe a bit less sleep for the President. Edited November 2, 2016 by Francis Albert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 The NYPD seized the computer from Weiner during a search warrant and detectives discovered a trove of over 500,000 emails to and from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and other insiders during her tenure as secretary of state. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Weiner+and+the+NYPD&view=detail&mid=06D7B3F42FC472A4F0CD06D7B3F42FC472A4F0CD&FORM=VIRE And any other devises he may have been using.............. Well well well, what have we here. It is being said by those in the know that it was the NYPD that told the FBI, do it, or they would release them themselves. What has been going on behind the cense the past few days and is now out in the open is mind boggling. One problematic Email server? What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) Sounds a bit like the Reagan presidency. With maybe a bit less sleep for the President. There are similarities but Reagan had been a politician for a while before running, Trump will have people to help him but he himself has only played at it. Edited November 2, 2016 by niblick1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvoys Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html Leaks suggest the classified emails has been the assumption but the real substance is the Clinton Foundation. An indictment seems very likely whichever way next week goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html Leaks suggest the classified emails has been the assumption but the real substance is the Clinton Foundation. An indictment seems very likely whichever way next week goes. Some that were hinting are now coming out and telling it how it is. They need to somehow get a corrupt to the core justice department to do the right thing. There are some very brave men that know their way around, doing the right thing. I'll keep saying it. There masks have slipped and they are there for all to see. There is more truth being told and addressed in this one MSM program from today than all the rest of the coverage I have watched on MSM put together. It was a strange sensation watching it. Bring it on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HOWaN2SxIA Edited November 3, 2016 by niblick1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Personally I get the distinct impression that Trump hasn't got a clue what he's about to let himself in for, if he won the presidency that is. It's probably just me, but I just think he thinks that he'll be able to treat the presidency like running his companies, he'll wander into the oval office at around 8 am, hold a meeting with some advisors, issue some orders, read and sign some papers, then off to lunch, maybe get a few holes in (steady now) of golf in the afternoon. I don't think he realises it's a 24 hour 365 days a year job, as said maybe it's just me. Seemed to be okay for Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendricks Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Personally I get the distinct impression that Trump hasn't got a clue what he's about to let himself in for, if he won the presidency that is. It's probably just me, but I just think he thinks that he'll be able to treat the presidency like running his companies, he'll wander into the oval office at around 8 am, hold a meeting with some advisors, issue some orders, read and sign some papers, then off to lunch, maybe get a few holes in (steady now) of golf in the afternoon. I don't think he realises it's a 24 hour 365 days a year job, as said maybe it's just me. He may have many faults but I don't think being work shy is one of them. He's campaigned far harder and put in many more hours than the tired looking and often awol Clinton over the last few months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 He may have many faults but I don't think being work shy is one of them. He's campaigned far harder and put in many more hours than the tired looking and often awol Clinton over the last few months. Often awol? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidelight Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Some that were hinting are now coming out and telling it how it is. They need to somehow get a corrupt to the core justice department to do the right thing. There are some very brave men that know their way around, doing the right thing. I'll keep saying it. There masks have slipped and they are there for all to see. There is more truth being told and addressed in this one MSM program from today than all the rest of the coverage I have watched on MSM put together. It was a strange sensation watching it. Bring it on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HOWaN2SxIA Just incredible content. The BBC coverage of the US elections has been such a disappointing Clinton white-wash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 He may have many faults but I don't think being work shy is one of them. He's campaigned far harder and put in many more hours than the tired looking and often awol Clinton over the last few months. I'm not saying he's work shy, all I'm saying is because he's not a politician does he understand what the top job actually comprises of? It's easy for anyone of us to say from the outside, I could do that job better, but in reality................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Seemed to be okay for Obama. It does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 There are similarities but Reagan had been a politician for a while before running, Trump will have people to help him but he himself has only played at it. Trump will have people to help him yes, however will he listen to them, now that's a different matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvoys Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Trump will have people to help him yes, however will he listen to them, now that's a different matter. Agreed. You can't have someone in the office that could easily reckon could be trolled by both Caitlin Jenner and Kim Jong Un alike, safe in the knowledge there would be a disastrous reaction to both. At the moment I would vote for her on the assumption that Tim Kaine will take over before summer rolls round. The Corleintons are now enter Nixon level toxicity imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvoys Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Agreed. You can't have someone in the office that could easily reckon could be trolled by both Caitlin Jenner and Kim Jong Un alike, safe in the knowledge there would be a disastrous reaction to both. At the moment I would vote for her on the assumption that Tim Kaine will take over before summer rolls round. The Corleintons are now enter Nixon level toxicity imo. Mangled wording. English is my first language surprisingly. 1. You can't have someone in that job when you could pretty much guarantee an overreaction from them on twitter and the world stage. 2. The Corelintons are now entering a level of toxicity not seen since Nixon imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mullen13 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Peebo Exile Registered Users B 12,490 posts LocationNRG Stadium DONATOR Posted 24 January 2016 - 11:37 AM Trump has absolutely no chance of winning the presidency. Zero. Quote MultiQuote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) <p> Peebo Exile Registered Users B 12,490 posts LocationNRG StadiumDONATOR Posted 24 January 2016 - 11:37 AM Trump has absolutely no chance of winning the presidency. Zero. Quote MultiQuote I stand by that. And if I'm wrong, and he does win, I'll be worried by more important things than looking like a dick on kickback! Has that been sitting on your clipboard since I posted it? Edited November 3, 2016 by Peebo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mullen13 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 I stand by that. And if I'm wrong, and he does win, I'll be worried by more important things than looking like a dick on kickback! Has that been sitting on your clipboard since I posted it? Ha no, I just had a gander to the start of the thread to see where Trump had come as an outsider even during the Republican candidate debates and this stuck out as a very bold statement. Wondered if you had changed your mind but clearly not. He certainly has more than zero chance scarily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Ha no, I just had a gander to the start of the thread to see where Trump had come as an outsider even during the Republican candidate debates and this stuck out as a very bold statement. Wondered if you had changed your mind but clearly not. He certainly has more than zero chance scarily. He will get tens of millions of votes. But I still think he has absolutely no chance of getting enough to beat Clinton. The guy is, and always has been, unelectable as a Presidential candidate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mullen13 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 He will get tens of millions of votes. But I still think he has absolutely no chance of getting enough to beat Clinton. The guy is, and always has been, unelectable as a Presidential candidate. I think that could be a slightly naive stance as it seems the momentum is with him. He was elected as republican candidate after all. Clinton is becoming increasingly unpopular. I hope I am wrong though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 I think that could be a slightly naive stance as it seems the momentum is with him. He was elected as republican candidate after all. Clinton is becoming increasingly unpopular. I hope I am wrong though. I may be wrong, but don't think I am any more naive regarding the US presidential election than anyone else on here. Yes, he is the candidate for the Republicans. That will win him millions of votes. Yes, he is not Hilary Clinton. That will also win him millions of votes. The corpse of Bin Laden would get tens of millions of votes if it were the Republican candidate in this election. Clinton has always been massively unpopular. Yes, the polls are now closer. I don't think he has any chance of winning the poll that actually matters, though. Time will tell, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 He will get tens of millions of votes. But I still think he has absolutely no chance of getting enough to beat Clinton. The guy is, and always has been, unelectable as a Presidential candidate. you may have thought that back in January and you may still be right in that he doesn't win. But you cant say today that he is"unelectable" He's the Republican candidate. Not a candidate. The candidate. He may even win the popular vote next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 you may have thought that back in January and you may still be right in that he doesn't win. But you cant say today that he is"unelectable" He's the Republican candidate. Not a candidate. The candidate. He may even win the popular vote next week. When I say unelectable, I mean I see no way he can get enough votes to win the election. I've said that all the way through. Of course, taken literally, he is electable. Many, many people are electable in this election. Clearly write-ins have no realistic chance. I believe he has no realistic chance. Can I say that? I think so. And perfectly comfortable with people disagreeing with that, mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 When I say unelectable, I mean I see no way he can get enough votes to win the election. I've said that all the way through. Of course, taken literally, he is electable. Many, many people are electable in this election. Clearly write-ins have no realistic chance. I believe he has no realistic chance. Can I say that? I think so. And perfectly comfortable with people disagreeing with that, mind. You can definitely say that. I think many Republicans thought 18 months ago that it was a publicity stunt by him to run. Its not anymore. This is real. To me, the wiki leaks, FBI and DOJ leaks over the past few days have proved once and for all that she is not fit to be President of the Unites States of America. The collusion between her, her staff and the DOJ only proves what people have been saying for years about the Clintons. I hope I am 100% wrong on what I believe I'm seeing and hearing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 You can definitely say that. I think many Republicans thought 18 months ago that it was a publicity stunt by him to run. Its not anymore. This is real. To me, the wiki leaks, FBI and DOJ leaks over the past few days have proved once and for all that she is not fit to be President of the Unites States of America. The collusion between her, her staff and the DOJ only proves what people have been saying for years about the Clintons. I hope I am 100% wrong on what I believe I'm seeing and hearing. Absolutely no doubt about it- Clinton is a very damaged candidate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Absolutely no doubt about it- Clinton is a very damaged candidate. No one I talk to will admit to ever thinking about voting for her but my state will vote once again for a Democrat. I must hang out with the wrong types. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferryjambo99 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) Who'll come up trumps? Edited November 3, 2016 by Ferryjambo99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Just incredible content. The BBC coverage of the US elections has been such a disappointing Clinton white-wash. There are few journalists, even on Fox News, more in the tank for Trump than Lou Dobbs. He's a Wall St. toady through and through. Even the Murdoch-owned Wall St. Journal is a beacon of fairness compared to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 I may be wrong, but don't think I am any more naive regarding the US presidential election than anyone else on here. Yes, he is the candidate for the Republicans. That will win him millions of votes. Yes, he is not Hilary Clinton. That will also win him millions of votes. The corpse of Bin Laden would get tens of millions of votes if it were the Republican candidate in this election. Clinton has always been massively unpopular. Yes, the polls are now closer. I don't think he has any chance of winning the poll that actually matters, though. Time will tell, of course. This keeps bugging me. In 2013 Clinton had a favorability rating of 65%. That was when she made it clear she was running for President. Fearing the power of her candidacy, the GOP started an attack operation on her three years before the election. The result is that the constant beating of that drum has people actually thinking she's inherently corrupt or unpopular. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html That's not some natural state, it's the product of deliberate action. Which in the world of politics is all fair, but it's not some essential truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 This keeps bugging me. In 2013 Clinton had a favorability rating of 65%. That was when she made it clear she was running for President. Fearing the power of her candidacy, the GOP started an attack operation on her three years before the election. The result is that the constant beating of that drum has people actually thinking she's inherently corrupt or unpopular. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html That's not some natural state, it's the product of deliberate action. Which in the world of politics is all fair, but it's not some essential truth. When I said "always", I meant always during the active course of the race over the last couple of years. So not really "always". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Interesting. Nothing has be verified as of yet from any source within the FBI i may add. Hillary Clinton 'likely' to be indicted by the FBI INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Interesting. Nothing has be verified as of yet from any source within the FBI i may add. Hillary Clinton 'likely' to be indicted by the FBI INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Trumph saying it's happening. He on Sky giving it large right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 I have no idea how the NYPD would have any info on what was on a laptop that the FBI have a hold of. So yes, trash would seem to be the right take. The NYPD seized the computer from Weiner during a search warrant and detectives discovered a trove of over 500,000 emails to and from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and other insiders during her tenure as secretary of state. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Weiner+and+the+NYPD&view=detail&mid=06D7B3F42FC472A4F0CD06D7B3F42FC472A4F0CD&FORM=VIRE And any other devises he may have been using.............. Well well well, what have we here. It is being said by those in the know that it was the NYPD that told the FBI, do it, or they would release them themselves. What has been going on behind the cense the past few days and is now out in the open is mind boggling. One problematic Email server? What? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html Leaks suggest the classified emails has been the assumption but the real substance is the Clinton Foundation. An indictment seems very likely whichever way next week goes. Some that were hinting are now coming out and telling it how it is. They need to somehow get a corrupt to the core justice department to do the right thing. There are some very brave men that know their way around, doing the right thing. I'll keep saying it. There masks have slipped and they are there for all to see. There is more truth being told and addressed in this one MSM program from today than all the rest of the coverage I have watched on MSM put together. It was a strange sensation watching it. Bring it on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HOWaN2SxIA Just incredible content. The BBC coverage of the US elections has been such a disappointing Clinton white-wash. There are few journalists, even on Fox News, more in the tank for Trump than Lou Dobbs. He's a Wall St. toady through and through. Even the Murdoch-owned Wall St. Journal is a beacon of fairness compared to him. You are full of distraction and have been throughout this thread. Your bubble is bust. truth is out. Trumph saying it's happening. He on Sky giving it large right now. He is saying that it is happening because it is. A lot of people thought that what I have posted below, when it came out, was some kind of practical joke, It's not, it's for real. What a lot of people thought was reality are about to have their reality turned on it's head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 This keeps bugging me. In 2013 Clinton had a favorability rating of 65%. That was when she made it clear she was running for President. Fearing the power of her candidacy, the GOP started an attack operation on her three years before the election. The result is that the constant beating of that drum has people actually thinking she's inherently corrupt or unpopular. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html That's not some natural state, it's the product of deliberate action. Which in the world of politics is all fair, but it's not some essential truth. Are you saying she's NOT corrupt and IS popular? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendricks Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 This keeps bugging me. In 2013 Clinton had a favorability rating of 65%. That was when she made it clear she was running for President. Fearing the power of her candidacy, the GOP started an attack operation on her three years before the election. The result is that the constant beating of that drum has people actually thinking she's inherently corrupt or unpopular. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html That's not some natural state, it's the product of deliberate action. Which in the world of politics is all fair, but it's not some essential truth. She is "inherently corrupt" and she is very "unpopular". She may still win the White House next week but her 4 years will be clouded in controversy and more and more likely all sorts of litigation and further scandal. She will be in no position to do the job required for the American people with all that going on. Then again maybe, just maybe she won't now win, Trumps odds have been cut yet again this afternoon, in from 5/1 a week ago to 2/1 today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Whoever wins be interesting what they are faced with. George W Bush didn't expect 9/11 though Islamic terrorism wasn't new. Like Bush before him Trump saying it's America first / less international commitments. But if it blows up over Syria etc he too might not have a choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 People can criticise Trump and Clinton. But America has produced them and allowed them to be in this position. If say Russia or Iran had the chance to pick the US candidates could they have done better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 One possibly corrupt woman who may be indicted by the FBI for not sending encrypted emails One absolute bampot who would destroy the economy, ruin all foreign relations and make the USA a pariah state. Some choice. Cannae wait for the next USA civil war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalamazoo Jambo Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 If say Russia or Iran had the chance to pick the US candidates could they have done better. Russia is doing its best to get its candidate in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Russia is doing its best to get its candidate in Are you talking about hacked emails? emails that may have been stolen but at the end of the day still definitely were written. Any proof out there yet on who released the emails or are we just assuming it was Russia. I could possibly get on board if the emails were false. Not one person has claimed this. All the keep repeating is that they were hacked/stolen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Are you talking about hacked emails? emails that may have been stolen but at the end of the day still definitely were written. Any proof out there yet on who released the emails or are we just assuming it was Russia. I could possibly get on board if the emails were false. Not one person has claimed this. All the keep repeating is that they were hacked/stolen. We know that Wikileaks is releasing them. It has also been stated by various people on TV that Assange hates Clinton. What is not known, although Russia has been suggested, is who is supplying the info to Wikileaks. Assange denies it's Russia. Trump claims that the leaked emails prove that Clinton is corrupt. Do they? I genuinely don't know as I haven't read any of them. This is an honest question ... what is in those emails that proves Clinton is corrupt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Russia is doing its best to get its candidate in If I were you I would be worried about the fact that they knew Russia had nothing to do with it while saying they would treat a cyber attack as any other act of war. They have nowhere to go and nothing to lose. This is for real and the sooner everyone realise this the better. Shit just got real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 We know that Wikileaks is releasing them. It has also been stated by various people on TV that Assange hates Clinton. What is not known, although Russia has been suggested, is who is supplying the info to Wikileaks. Assange denies it's Russia. Trump claims that the leaked emails prove that Clinton is corrupt. Do they? I genuinely don't know as I haven't read any of them. This is an honest question ... what is in those emails that proves Clinton is corrupt? It might be the FBI going by recent events or the CIA. It's a deep murky world out there. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Hacked by Russia or not the content of those e-mails and what they are revealing is important here. The Clinton Foundation seems like a murky one to say the least. Follow the money trail for possible corruption and underhand tactics and manipulation. WikiLeaks: Clintons Sell Political Favors to Clinton Foundation Donors Latest hack reveals Bill Clinton does political favors for Clinton Foundation donors?completely unrelated to philanthropy. OBSERVER.COM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 The plot thickening?? Jimmy Carter new eh.. In 2015 President Jimmy Carter went on record and stated America has become an Oligarchy and is no longer a Democracy. One of the latest revelations/leaks to come from the Wikileaks eh # podestaEmail dumps is that Hillary Clinton and her staff "are familiar with the jaw-dropping Princeton University study showing the U.S. is no longer a democracy. It is instead an oligarchy, or ?rule by an elite class.? LEE CAMP via Redacted Tonight has just wrote a great article about this, check it on his website here: http://leecamp.net/breaking-leaks-show-clintons-staff-know?/ Also WRC author Danny F. Quest wrote about topics related to this not long ago, which you can read here: http://wearechange.org/jimmy-carter-u-s-completely-subvert?/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.